[jajko]

Why would currently anybody globally trust FAA? Clearly regulatory capture has happened, its not 1 or 2 isolated cases at this point.

Trust is something thats hard earned and easily lost, they already went through both so if FAA wants to come back they have some serious effort on their shoulders in upcoming decade at least.

And slapping Boeing and those responsible so hard that wall will give them another is mandatory first step since this theatre is played out for literally everybody in the world, everybody is watching.

[hef19898]

You are pinting to a very serious issue. Up until the 737 MAX, if someone or something had FAA or EASA certification, getting the other one was more or less just a formality. And this helped everyone a lot, and in fact made things saver as the engineering was less, constraint, limited, bothered by regulation (no idea how to phrase this...), because they only had to worry deeply about either FAA or EASA requirements. The 737 MAX did put a dent in this, and that was and is a problem.

And everyone knows this, besides Boeing it seems, which is the reason why I am cautiosly optimistic about the investogations.

[stavros]

How did it put a dent in this? Is it not certified by one of the two agencies?

[hef19898]

It is certified by both, with EASA nasically accepting the FAA certication at face value (oversimplified a bit). That means trusting the other agency. It was this trust that was hurt by the initial B737 MAX scandle and the handling of it by both, Boeing and the FAA.

[stavros]

Ah, I see, thanks. So the FAA cut corners when certifying?

I guess trust only works when the other agency is up to the same standards as you, but then "certified by the FAA and the EASA" only really means "certified by one of the two".

[hef19898]

No, the FAA didn't cut corners, Boeing did. The FAA did a bad job catching it.

And being certified by both means that orgs and aircraft are certified by both. Decades of cooperation and alignment of regulations and requirements mean that the sevond certification is covering the delta between both, believing the common stuff to be properly cerified by the other regulator. That is where the FAA lost trust.

Hence my believe the FAA will not show much liniency to Boeing this time.

[sebzim4500]

The last fatal accident in a commerical airliner in the US was in 2009.

We have to zoom out here, the FAA are not dropping the ball.

[jen20]

Regardless of whether flying is safer or not, the citation is incorrect: a passenger on Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 died in 2018 following a contained engine failure.

[sebzim4500]

Fair point, although since I said "in a commercial airliner" and the passenger was partially ejected before dying I might be technically correct.

[jen20]

Ah, well by those criteria alone, PenAir 3296 in 2019 would probably win - a passenger died inside the plane after a runway excursion.

[lucianbr]

You think the crashes of the two 737 MAX being outside of the US was not luck, but determined at least in part by the FAA? Would you care to explain how you came to this conclusion, as I really, really don't see it...

[jajko]

His comments point to borderline racist statements from boeing early in the saga where they tried to blame this all on incompetence of the Ethiopian/other pilots, maintenance crew and so on.

To some folks human lives don't have the same value but it depends highly on passport, as long as stuff happens outside of their border all is fine (although in this case nothing is since this affects everybody everywhere). I wouldn't expect such a comment here in 2024 but here we are.